Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Patriots On Watch Net Radio- The Sinless Gospel

God orders genocide on the Canaanites. Mark takes on the tough questions and demonstrates the morality of that decision. Plus, Thomas Jefferson on the two natural Parties of Man. And, the sinless gospel fails to protect the next generation.

8 Comments:

Anonymous said...

I'll attempt to set this out a little neater.

I accept 'preaching against sin is love', but would point out that the greatest commandment is loving God, followed by loving our neighbors. If there is no greater commandment than these, it stands to reason that the greatest sin is the result of breaking the greatest commandment.(Mar 12:30-31)

If upon this hangs the law and the prophets (Mat 22:40), then it stands to reason that this must be the primary message of the church.

Once this is understood, those that follow this commandment will 'not be far from the kingdom of God' (Mar 12:34) , their 'right conduct' will surely follow.

When I subsequently say 'allow the Holy Spirit to convict' I don't mean to imply we can prevent this from happening, but that we should not take this task upon ourselves, leave this job to the Holy Spirit.

If one does not willing follow the first commandment, there is no point in our pointing out one's other sins; and if one does follow it, we likely won't have to, but can in love, gently remind each other of 'proper behavior.'

I fear you are bugling an indistinct note. What does it mean to "love God" if you do not obey His commandments?

Your notion that the Holy Spirit should convict of sin, without our witness that the Spirit is true reminds one of the old Mainline churches who favored Predestination. They reasoned that since it was the Holy Spirit's job to convict, and God choose who would be saved, then there was no point in evangelizing.

Those churches are empty shells of their former selves, while those who believed in evangelism are still vibrant.

We don't need a convoluted chain of reasoning to try and decipher what the primary message of the church should be. Christ plainly instructed the Disciples on what it should be...LUKE 24

"Luke 24:46-48 (King James Version)

46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48And ye are witnesses of these things."

and...

here is what Jesus' disciples actually preached....

Mark 6

"11And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

12And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

13And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them."

See Acts where Stephen preached if you want to read what a disciple of Christ preaches like....

There is no context for it means to love God or man without the Law. The Buddhists have "The noble 8 fold way" which is "right thinking, right conduct" etc...but is low on specifics as to how to define those terms. The Law is inconveniently explicit for those who want to rationalize away their sins and call it righteousness- which is ALL of us on some level.

God cared too much to let us get away with that phony way. He did not stop with glittering generalities. He gave a law that went into detail. It's not the way to salvation, God's grace is the way, but it is a way to tell if you REALLY love God or are simply trying to con yourself (for there is no conning Him).

"What does it mean to "love God" if you do not obey His commandments?"

If you do not love God, you are disobeying the first and foremost commandment, so it is impossible to do both. Loving God is the very foundation of all the commandments.

While following the law is useless without love, it sounds like you are asking the church to first preach on sin and the law, which would seem to displace love from the *primary* position in which Christ places it.

Further, when you rightly say Christ and the apostles taught repentance, you must know that simply changing behavior or saying 'sorry' to get into heaven is a useless and futile endeavor unless one also believes on God. Therefore, repentance is surely more than merely changing behavior.

Repentance must either include, or be accompanied by something. I propose it must at least include or be accompanied by believing and loving God.

Indeed, nobody has any incentive to repent unless they first believe on God, and secondly, love Him enough to change their course.

From this, I must say the most vital and primary job of the church is to teach the world to love God and each other, or all of your lessons on sin is for naught.

it sounds like you are asking the church to first preach on sin and the law, which would seem to displace love from the *primary* position in which Christ places it.

I find it amazing that you are twisting this so as to somehow portray ME as the one who is leaving something out.

The subject of the discussion is "What does it mean to love God". My point was that repentance is a necessary a part of loving God. Saying one "love's God" without a burning desire to learn His will and sorry for where we fall short of it is not honest love.

That's been my position throughout, now somehow you write as if we are talking about two different things, as if repentance for offending God with our sin was something altogether apart from loving Him!

You are getting closer to the truth in other parts of your statements, but then you swerve back to the conclusion (unsupported even by much of what you write) that preaching repentance is not a part of love. I've already quoted the scriptures. Christ doesn't have Christianity wrong. If He preached repentance, so should we.

Simply put, one must *first* change one's heart, and love God, for this is the foundation for turning from sin.

You seem to rightly want people to turn from sin, and naturally assume this means they will turn towards God. I take the opposite view, that turning towards God naturally places one's back towards sin.

Repentance is like a branch that beareth fruit. Asking the church to preach on good fruit is fine, but this assumes every branch grows on the right vine.

I am merely pointing out that the church must first preach the true vine, that each branch can then assuredly grow good fruit.

Your objection seems to be along the lines of 'how can a branch be on the right vine when it bears no fruit?'